Beyond the strings: the clash of ideas and interests
Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu on the relativity of right and wrong, and the limits of belief, dialogue #6
When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mohists. What one calls right, the other calls wrong; what one calls
wrong, the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best thing to use is clarity.
Chuang Tzu, "Discussions on Making All Things Equal 齊物論" (Burton Watons's version)In April 2025, the US government initiated the imposition of tariffs on approximately 90 countries worldwide, marking a watershed moment in the country’s trade policy.
It’s challenging to understand how each country affected by this policy would respond, yet it’s not hard to find that there will be different routes to proceeding with this trade war, depending on the specific relationships they have cultivated with the US.
What is certain amid this trade drama is that it will never fail to bring about contention, media outrage, and criticism. Economic policy, once put into effect, produces the effect of mutual adjustment of interests among different social groups. While consumers get hurt by higher import costs, some exporters can take advantage of the window of opportunity when dealing with foreign buyers.
Like many other types of policies, some sections within a society will unavoidably have to bear the cost of national policy adjustments.
Nevertheless, a trade war, like the one we are experiencing right now, can go beyond pure economic logic. Things would have been much easier to deal with if it were only about economic calculations or doing business.
The tariff policy revolves around the trade deficits of the US against many countries, but goes far beyond this point of tension, such as reshaping the rules of international trade, reshuffling economic and political alliances, or national security. And judging from its development, the whole thing appears to be the two most powerful economic players — the US and China — competing against each other, with the rest of the world shaking.
Every country, every government, and every keen observer of the trade war would naturally have their own opinions and thoughts on who’s right and who’s wrong.
The problem is, can we really know whose reasoning makes more sense?
There are those who believe that the world we live in today, so to speak, the international system is very much anarchic, even with the US-led international order established since the end of the Second World War. The reason is that the rule of the jungle is still prevalent in much of the world.
I will have to admit that, to a large extent, this line of thinking is valid. For there still exist powerful states that are not abiding by the rules of the game. Otherwise, the world would be spared much suffering and trouble from the recurrence of wars, invasions, terrorist acts, human rights violations, or transnational organized crimes.
In the face of human atrocities, even international law, the power of de jure enforcement (legally recognized but not necessarily exercised), such as international treaties or the rulings of the International Court of Justice, often pales in comparison to the actual reality.
On the other hand, the positive aspect of the international system we have now is that it checks the sheer brutalities and vulgarities associated with barbaric behaviors, whether from individuals or states.
Nevertheless, on an existential level, we are still asleep to some extent. That is to say, the course of events in today’s world, as a result of policy actions from particular countries, are fundamentally shaped by the inherent animal passions, often packaged as self-interest and rationalized desires.
Modern tragedies, ancient lessons
Political language and propaganda techniques can often make pure lies sound truthful and beautiful, like poisonous gas that looks clean yet deadly. In this sense, ancient and modern times are inescapably connected.
The Warring States period (475-221 BC) witnessed a number of kingdoms rise and fall one after another. With the central government of the Zhou Dynasty in decline, its fief kingdoms became restless in their pursuit of power and status.
Against this background, the rulers of these kingdoms saw a political necessity to ally themselves with influential scholars who were socially and politically minded, which was often perceived as a normal way to legitimize their political actions.
Naturally, scholars from different schools of thought saw their political opportunities. The Mohists 墨家 contributed their expertise on defense capabilities while preaching the ideals of “universal love” and “non-aggression.”
The Legalists 法家, aiming to support rulers who aspired to establish a state in the model of a military and mighty stronghold, emphasized the crucial importance of designing a centralized and effective bureaucracy serving the sole ruler.
The Confucians 儒家, with their passion and sincerity, went about the various kingdoms offering advice to rulers to practice human-heartedness 仁 and righteousness 義, in an effort to rebuild the ritual system 禮 and moral order in society.
The Huang-Lao Taoists 黃老道家, while acknowledging the constant shifting of times, advised rulers to follow along with the circumstances. In the state of Qi 齊國, the Jixia Academy 稷下學宮 — led by the Huang-Lao Taoists, became a central hub of cultural and intellectual life, which shaped the trajectory of the rest of the Warring States Period and beyond.
Every school was right to some extent, despite their differences in governance methods and understanding of how things should work.
Yet, when sifting through the early writings of these different schools, one noticeable commonality is that they were all torn by the discrepancy between the ideal and reality.
To them, the crux of the existential issue, in their time, was about establishing the ideal political and social order. To achieve this, they were faced with two paths: the kingly way, 王道, and the hegemon’s way, 霸道.
The kingly way is primarily concerned with the moral and ethical application of power, the welfare of the general population, and leadership quality. In contrast, the hegemon’s way is essentially a rule by force, which is based on the effective use of raw power, deterrence, coercion and control.1
And there was no consensus among the various schools regarding how to achieve both. With this context, the conversation between Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu directly points toward the essentially limiting nature of perspectives and the predicament of existence.
The wisdom of accord
Chuang Tzu said, “If an archer, without aiming at the mark, just happens to hit it, and we dub him a skilled archer, then everyone in the world can be an Archer Yi (a famous ancient archer), all right?2
“All right,” said Hui Tzu.
Chuang Tzu said, “If there is no publicly accepted ‘right’ in the world, but each person takes right to be what he himself thinks is right, then everyone in the world can be a Yao (a sage ruler), all right?”
“All right,” said Hui Tzu.
Chuang Tzu said, “Well then, here are the four schools of the Confucians, Mo, Yang, and Bing and, with your own, that makes five. Now which of you is right?
Or is it perhaps like the case of Lu Ju? His disciple said to him, ‘Master, I have grasped your Way. I can build a fire under the cauldron in winter and make ice in summer.’ ‘But that is simply using the yang to attract the yang, and the yin to attract the yin,’ said Lu Ju. ‘That is not what I call the Way!
So, Lu Ju tuned two lutes, placed one in the hall, and the other in an inner room. When he struck the gong 宮 note3 on one lute, the gong on the other lute sounded; when he struck the jue 角 note, the other jue sounded, the pitch of the two instruments was in perfect accord.
Then, he changed the tuning of one string so that it no longer corresponded to any of the five notes. When he plucked this string, it set all the twenty-five strings of the other instrument to jangling. But he was still using sounds to produce his effect; in this case it just happened to be the note that governs the other notes. Now is this the way it is in your case?”
Hui Tzu said, “The followers of Confucius, Mo, Yang, and Bing often engage with me in debate, each of us trying to overwhelm the others with phrases and to silence them with shouts — but so far they have never proved me wrong. So what do you make of that?”
Chuang Tzu said, “A man sold his own son into service in another country, having dubbed him Gatekeeper and maimed him; but when he acquired any bells or chimes, he wrapped them up carefully to prevent breakage.
Another man went looking for a lost son but was unwilling to go any farther than the border in his search — there are men as mixed up as this, you know…
Truth in the fog
Chuang Tzu’s metaphor — everyone can be a superb archer if one simply hits the mark by chance, without a doubt, is an ironic comment.
Yet, it prompts one to think: what if this is the situation we have been conditioned to? What if a specific type of education, the perspectives and stereotypes, or even “common sense” about things that we have taken for granted, can prove to be arbitrary and untrustworthy?
To operate effectively in any society, we need common ground and a shared understanding of the world around us. Nevertheless, a perception is not necessarily a truthful grasp of the authenticity of things. To some extent, it functions as a distorted mirror or a low-resolution camera, providing an insufficient representation of the object we aim to understand.
In this sense, the inquiry transitions from the object of an investigation to the subject. If the subject, namely, the individual, is already clouded by specious perspectives and insufficient understanding in forming judgment and assessment, then any subjective views and actions can be a source of fuel for arguing and debating.
In the case of the trade war, the supporters would convincingly cite evidence that tariffs and non-tariff barriers (e.g., license and permit requirements, import quotas) are necessary and contribute to economic welfare in the long run.
In contrast, free trade advocates would refute such a narrative by citing even more substantial evidence that tariffs cause higher import costs for both consumers and businesses. Therefore, the economy as a whole suffers. In the end (is there an end?), no one successfully convinces the other. It all comes down to this: Can we still truly understand and trust one another?
Many years ago, when I was still a student, during my internship at a research organization, I recall asking my supervisor at dinner about his thoughts on why US politics had become so divided. His comment was that it has always been so since the founding of the republic. I thought, “This might be the balance of yin and yang, water and fire, as long as one side does not eat the other.”
If we think about it, disagreements over trade wars, policies, or other debatable issues can make our minds work like an echo chamber. Sounds come and go all the time. It is just inevitable.
The media outlets, the newspapers, the spread of word, the rumors, the gossip, the ideological propaganda, the algorithm-based search and recommendation systems, all of which have one thing in common — they invade our minds while leaving us with reinforced viewpoints and perspectives with quantifiable details and evidence. To some extent, they inform but do not necessarily inspire. They provide information but do not necessarily awaken.
It’s no surprise our societies have oftentimes been disrupted by conspiracy theories and misguided policies. But, it’s a disservice to reject the perspectives of various conspiracy theories because some of them start off by questioning the veracity of authoritative or established views. This means we can disagree with what they try to sell but not necessarily reject their approaches.
With this open-minded spirit, we see the rise of the anti-vaccine movement during the covid pandemic, the popularity of the term “deep state,” and so on, as a vote of no trust in how things have been managed by public institutions, or even lack of hope in turning things back on the right track.
Incompetency should never be rewarded by blind loyalty. There’s no question about it. But, reality is far more complex and fluid than what a theoretical model or a particular socio-historical methodology can explain fully. In other words, being driven by a theory is essentially an act of spiritual submission. If spiritual freedom is considered a critical part of individual autonomy, then there’s no pride in esteeming a particular theory.
In a rather tragic sense, the human condition is built upon an irrational and unreasonable foundation. That is to say, some elements of human actions are driven by emotions, misguided beliefs, or fanaticism instead of pure reason and common sense. All the acts of seeking omens and prophecies, or finding justifications from theoretical principles and theological consolation, are attempting to find assurance for the heart and soul, to retreat from the absurdity, hardship, and suffering of this unstable world.
Naturally, in the midst of these meanderings of seeking, we make mistakes and go astray. Being aware or not, we adopt the habit of believing what we want to believe, reinforcing preconceived notions and views by absorbing selected information and following prevailing opinions. As a result, what we have gained is informed prejudices and partial judgment instead of trying to see things with clarity.
In this sense, we see that all history is contemporary and relevant. In 1894, as a French army officer, Alfred Dreyfus could not have anticipated that he would be targeted as an insider spy for the Germans. The systemic discrimination and hatred against the Jews back then, fueled by populist media and social sentiment, was just one of the many examples of humanity being good at waging wars against ourselves.
And what is the official excuse from Russia for invading Ukraine? To “demilitarize” and “denazify” the Ukrainian government and society. Isn’t that an obvious act of trampling on basic common sense?
The human dilemma
There is always the danger of narrow-minded worldviews that prey on people’s emotions and life struggles, which could ultimately mobilize radical social movements.
The classical Marxist dichotomy of society into the capitalist class and the proletariat is such an example. Marxists would claim that capitalists are the parasites of society, and the goal of the communist revolution is to smash the old society and its system, as if rebuilding something new is always easier than having the wisdom to improve and reform.
If they were truly intelligent enough and historically minded, they could find sufficient empirical cases from dynastic breakdowns and popular uprisings in traditional China.
Taking away the factor of foreign invasion for causing a dynasty to collapse, every great dynasty eventually enters a downward trend when the entire society has become so corrupt and decadent that it cannot address popular grievances. People have essentially lost confidence and hope in continuing to live in the old social, moral, and political order. As a result, they would rally under some rising leaders in the name of carrying out Heaven’s Way 替天行道.
What is this Heaven’s Way? Lao Tzu has said it clearly:
The Tao (way) of Heaven,
Is it not like the bending of a bow?
The top comes down and the bottom-end goes up,
...
It is the Way of Heaven to take away from those that have too much
And give to those that have not enough.
Tao Te Ching, Chapter 77 (Lin Yutang's version)The implication is that eliminating all kinds of differences is unnatural and fundamentally contrary to the laws of the universe. Going to the extreme will turn out to be counterproductive.
The successful dynasties, such as the Han (206 BC - 220 AD) and Tang (618-907 AD), before reaching their prime, are somewhat aligned with Heaven’s Way — the wise rulers and their ministers know that they cannot hold the realm together without keeping to virtuous, capable, and trustworthy governance. So, there exists a general sense of satisfaction and contentment among various social groups.
Misfortune and chaos arise when people become desperate as they see no hope in moving about to improve their livelihood. They recognize that society has become so ossified that they have to sacrifice their own interests to serve the already powerful and well-connected elites and the ruling class.
In today’s language, if a system is founded with a restorative function, such as the existence of the rule of law, wealth redistribution mechanisms, and social welfare, to balance and adjust the interests of groups and make individuals feel that they can still live and breathe with dignity and freedom, then it still preserves the opportunity to make things work. The system can largely avoid the fate of radical breakdown and fresh renewal.
In other words, peace, cooperation, and harmony are the natural results of finding the same or similar level of vibration and frequency. As Chuang Tzu’s words explained, discord would arise when the two instruments are out of tune. To be in accord, all we need is to fine-tune them instead of destroying either one of them.
Yet, it’s no easy task to find accord in human affairs. We need mutual understanding, shared values and norms, and similar ways of doing things to find that sweet spot of vibration synchronicity. This is the secret of making things happen for oneself (committing to the thing that resonates with the frequency of your heart and soul), forming allies, building teams, and forging relationships.
So, it’s not hard to see that an ego-driven and self-centered perspective is typical of radicalism. By taking the high moral ground, it would always blame others for the problems of human conditions. The radicalists’ violent behavior is like a spoiled kid’s temper tantrum, crying to damage everything if he cannot get what he wants.
And it’s not always the case that the practitioners and participants of these radical movements are not aware of the defects of their own conscience, it’s rather that, by acting under the umbrella of a collective group, the fear of being punished from violent actions would be absolved and the sense of guilt and shame would be dissolved as a member of a formidable group.
Yet, on a fundamental and existential level, if we think about the predicament of human conditions, aren’t we the sources of pollution to the planet and the disease to the earth? If we dare to face the human-centric point of view, we would take delight in not taking ourselves seriously, seeing through the absurdity of these endless arguments, fights, and enmities.
I think that’s also why I hate censorship and total control of thought, for it only allows one type of voice to exist in the social atmosphere, assuming itself as the sole legitimate judge of human conscience, persecuting the soul of culture, and exploiting euphemistic excuses to force/coerce people to shut up.
Unfortunately, even totalitarian thought can claim that it is “scientific,” with a solid intellectual foundation and based on a thorough understanding of how things work.
So, in the face of endless confusion about the world, what is it that we truly value or seek while being arrogant about our certainties and self-righteousness? Are we, sometimes, making the same mistake as the man who sold his son while preferring to take care of a bell?
Chuang Tzu had seen this coming,
The empire is in utter confusion, sagehood and excellence are not clarified, we do not have the one Way and Virtue; below in the empire there are many who find a single point to scrutinise and delight in as their own. There is an analogy in the ears, eyes, nose and mouth; all have something they illuminate but they cannot exchange their functions, just as the various specialities of the Hundred Schools all have their strong points and at times turn out useful. However, they are not inclusive, not comprehensive; these are men each of whom has his own littler corner...Therefore the Way to be inwardly a sage and outwardly a king 內聖外王之道 becomes darkened and is not clarified, becomes clogged and does not issue forth, and below in the empire each man studies whatever he prefers in it, and turns it into a formula of his own. Alas, if the Hundred Schools go off in their own directions and do not return, it is certain that they will never join up! If scholars of later generations unhappily fail to see what is purest in heaven and earth, and the grand corpus of the ancients, the tradition of the Way will be ripped to pieces below in the empire 道術將為天下裂.4
Next in this series:
Mencius said, “One who, supported by force, pretends to being humane is a hegemon, and a hegemon has to have a large state. One who out of Virtue practices humaneness is a true king, and a true king does not need anything large.” See Mencius. Translated by Irene Bloom (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 33.
Burton Watson, “Xu Wugui,” 204-205.
Two of the five musical notes in the ancient Chinese pentatonic scale. Gong is equivalent to do in the Western note system. Jue is equivalent to mi.
A. C. Graham, "Below in the empire," in Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1989), 275.
It's interesting that the more developed, later texts of Confucianism and Legalism seem to require that the people be kept ignorant of the decisions of rulers.
Do you see that as a trend? Any signs of the same symptom in Daoist writings?
Well written! One thing that strikes me is the important role of media/ narratives as an active geopolitical agent in shaping our worldview. I, too, hate the idea of censoring, obstructing free flowing information, and controlling of accessible information as smokescreen for dirty laundries not to be aired. With social media, people are also gravitating towards what they are used to/ what they feel comfortable with - driving them to either extremes. Just quoted an OpEd in my latest post on how foreign aid, for instance, have long been framed as generosity, but it really has been designed to uphold colonial power dynamics and donors interests. Nothing changed.
I particularly like this sentence of yours, "To some extent, they inform but do not necessarily inspire. They provide information but do not necessarily awaken." So much that can be done given the current state of affairs.